Perception
I believe in Objective Truth.
I believe that as flawed collecters of subjective data, we cannot have access to that Truth.
But we can try to get as close to it as we can, and that's what Science does.
I've had conversations with people who see Science as some kind of blinkered machine, dismissing anything it cannot explain as being non-existent. Science, as I understand it, does not do that. In small samples, in practice, of course it happens far too often. But as a meta-concept, the Scientific Method does not do that. The scientific method is more open to all ideas than any of the spiritualities that so love to cast it as rigid and exclusive.
When testable data which is of predictive value is encountered, it is incorporated into the Scientific Method Uber Worldview.
Of course, insisting that phenomenon be predictable or replicable or testable to be relevant to my world view gets spiritualists up in arms.
I've had it suggested to me that Science and Religion should work together to cure the world's ills. Well, as science has already explained religion as a fascinating example of evolutionary psychology (Or at least, I have, so I have to hope that Scientists at large have grokked that concept) the idea of science working with religion is both redundant and impossible.
When I point out that there is no evidence for the existence of God, proponents of religion generally either state that the lack of proof is, in itself, all the evidence needed to definatively prove that God does exist, or they begin to provide what they see to be evidence or proof of the existence of god. There is nothing to be gained by pointing out that the things that they tout as proof of the existence of God have been explained by science to have entirely non-supernatural causes, because, to their mind, that is simply Science making stuff up to explain away the Truth! It can be quite frustrating.
But at least I have a scientific explanation for their fervent adherence to their beliefs. They just put mine down to being brainwashed by the evils of science. :-P
I believe that as flawed collecters of subjective data, we cannot have access to that Truth.
But we can try to get as close to it as we can, and that's what Science does.
I've had conversations with people who see Science as some kind of blinkered machine, dismissing anything it cannot explain as being non-existent. Science, as I understand it, does not do that. In small samples, in practice, of course it happens far too often. But as a meta-concept, the Scientific Method does not do that. The scientific method is more open to all ideas than any of the spiritualities that so love to cast it as rigid and exclusive.
When testable data which is of predictive value is encountered, it is incorporated into the Scientific Method Uber Worldview.
Of course, insisting that phenomenon be predictable or replicable or testable to be relevant to my world view gets spiritualists up in arms.
I've had it suggested to me that Science and Religion should work together to cure the world's ills. Well, as science has already explained religion as a fascinating example of evolutionary psychology (Or at least, I have, so I have to hope that Scientists at large have grokked that concept) the idea of science working with religion is both redundant and impossible.
When I point out that there is no evidence for the existence of God, proponents of religion generally either state that the lack of proof is, in itself, all the evidence needed to definatively prove that God does exist, or they begin to provide what they see to be evidence or proof of the existence of god. There is nothing to be gained by pointing out that the things that they tout as proof of the existence of God have been explained by science to have entirely non-supernatural causes, because, to their mind, that is simply Science making stuff up to explain away the Truth! It can be quite frustrating.
But at least I have a scientific explanation for their fervent adherence to their beliefs. They just put mine down to being brainwashed by the evils of science. :-P
posted by Jac | 10:27 pm
2 Comments:
You say that science has explained religion. This is so depending on how far you throw the net of science. If you consider sociology and anthropology to be sciences (they try to use scientific method but they also get infected with some brands of fuzzy thinking like post-modernism) then they have definately formulated explanations for the development of religion which are totally consistent with a material universe. However having rational and natural explanations for the existence of religion is very different from disproving the claims of religions.
There could still be a God even if world religions only accidentally stumbled upon the concept.
As for science and religion working together to better the world - there are plenty of cases in which this is so. Religious organisations can coordinate the distribution of largese to tidal wave victims (yes so can non-religious organisations but every bit helps) while scientists can help by providing advanced warning of future disasters. The important thing to note here is that they may work towards the same objective but that (a) they do so in different ways and (b) are in no way obligated to change the way they think just because of that cooperation.
I hope I am still on topic...
I do consider sociology and anthropology to be sciences. I'm in the "If it isn't metaphysics, it's physics" camp.
Regarding 'disproving the claims of religions', my point is that it is inherent to the nature of religion to be impossible to disprove. Religions evolve that way.
The question for science versus religion is one of: Does the existence or lack thereof of God or indeed anything metaphysical have a predictable impact on anything I can test? There is no need to disprove the irrellevant.
Of course, deistic religions I'm familiar with have a caveat dictating that the deity will not be tested.
My response to that is "Or what?" and the resounding answer is, as ever; "Or I'll not reveal myself to you." Big shock. :-P (thing is, I can think of a perfectly good anthropological and sociological reason for that caveat, too...)
Science and religion can and do work together, but I feel that there will always be inefficiency where subjective and controversial interpretations of certain parts of a particular two thousand year old book of dubious provenace are expected to be afforded equal or more weight than very well researched and thoroughly tested scientific findings.
You cite disaster relief efforts as examples of science and religion working together. I cheerfully agree that all hands are appreciated under those circumstances.
I cite disaster prevention - per the conflict between scientific and religious approaches to stemming the transmission of HIV. That is a very clear (to my mind) instance in which religion needs to get over itself, stop undermining the efforts of medical aid workers and health educators, and help *do what works*.
I have nothing against people having their own spiritual beliefs or religious faith, but I am very prickly about the idea that it be forced on others in ways that impact their rights (say, access to health information and condoms). As religions that do not self-propogate are quickly supplanted by those that do, and those that do it best thrive best (as with all good evolutionary theroy) the most aggressively infectious religions are the ones that are out on the frontiers where people are most vulnerable to both a lack of scientific knowledge and strong strains of religion that they have no resistance to.
Topic?
Topic-shmopic. Rambling welcome, latteral thinking encouraged. Make three comments, get a free tangent. ;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home